transit oriented development 2.0

TOD Version 2.0: Dreams and Realities

Dr. Richard Willson, FAICPDepartment of Urban and Regional Planning

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

Research PresentationPortland State University

Presentation themes

• TOD in context• TOD 1.0 > TOD 2.0• TOD 2.0 opportunities• TOD as a climate strategy

Transit‐oriented development

• Transit-focused development

• Higher densities + mixed land uses

• Human scale design + interconnected streets and sidewalks

… the intersection of good transit planning and good community development planning…

A new frame for considering TOD• AB 32: 1990 emissions

by 2020• SB 375: GHG emissions

from vehicle miles traveled– MPO assigned targets– Coordinate transportation,

land use, and housing• Sustainable Community

Strategy• Link mandates• CEQA streamlining

California transportation emissions

CA total (2006)

552 mmt eCO2

All transport 42%

On-road 31%

Light duty 24%

AB 32 reduction targets

Low CarbonFuels

15 MMT

Vehicle Systems/ Operations4.5 MMT

Vehicle Efficiency31.7 MMT

VMT5 MMT(2.9%)

PersonalTransportation

56.2 MMT(32%)

Transportation planning process

Traditions Contemporary Practice

Technocratic, simple goals, plans as blueprints

Values and facts in dispute; decision support

Dominance of Federal, state and local processes

Greater regional perspective, local funding

Cost effective mobility enhancement

Multi-modal access and mobility; co-benefits considered

Transportation planning methods and strategiesTraditions Contemporary Practice

Methods for network scale capital improvements

Methods to assess operations, non-auto modes, pricing, land use

Facility performance and project level environmental mitigation

Multimodal performance measurement, impact assessment,

JTW as the foundation for transportation planning

Collapse of land use separations

Private sector driven land use Growth management, smart growth, regional blueprint planning

California TOD, version 1.0

• On fixed rail• On station property

and within ¼ mile• Vertical mixed use

Weaknesses of 1.0

• Using cheap ROW

• Dispersed O/D patterns

• Counter incentives

• Market support

The station area “donut hole”

California TOD studies• Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented

Development in California (2004)– Lund, Cervero and Willson– http://www.csupomona.edu/~rwwillson/

• Light rail: San Diego Trolley, Los Angeles Blue Line, San Jose VTA, Sacramento

• Heavy rail: Los Angeles Red Line, BART• Commuter rail: San Diego Coaster, LA Metrolink,

Caltrain

• Pasadena Gold Line

• Current study: Riverside and San Bernardino (Inland Empire) bus and commuter rail TOD

Results from TOD residents…

Transit Commute Mode Share (Rail and Bus)

26.5

44.937.8

3.313 17.4

5.413.8

5.8 6.6 4.2 4.80

102030405060708090

100

All ResidentialSites

BART: PleasantHill

BART: S.Alameda Cnty

LA Metro: LongBeach

SD Trolley:Mission Valley

CaltrainCommuter

Total

trips

(%)

Surveyed Sites Surrounding City

Results from TOD workers…

Transit Commute Mode Share (Rail and Transit)

18.8

38.5

17.27.8 2.9

29

65.1 9.5 9.5 4.7 3.4 2.7 4.70

102030405060708090

100

All Office Sites BART:Berkeley

BART: WlntCrk/Fremont

LA Red Line:Hollywood

SD Trolley:Missn Valley

SacramentoLRT

Metrolink:Anaheim

Total

Trip

s (%

)

Surveyed SitesSurrounding Region

Tensions and contradictions

Self selection

Lack of attractive multi-family housing options

Lack of transit/walk/bike friendly living environments

Success levels

High rail ridership/low TOD

High TOD/low rail ridership

TOD 1.0 successes

• Mature systems; TOD networks

• Policy support • Design integration• Pent up housing

demand

TOD Version 2.0

• Matching TOD to context

• TOD as VMT/climate strategy

Best practice ‐ transit service

Brown and Thompson (2009):• Multidestination vision • Rail transit backbone

with high quality bus• Serve non-CBD travel,

activity centers, non-work trips; ease transfers

Best practice ‐ land use and community development

• Coordinated station area planning + vision

• Parking + multimodal access

• Brownfield redevelopment

• Service economy job dispersion

Supporting factors

• Coherent, multi-agency planning frameworks

• Demography• Cultural changes • Traffic congestion +

energy price volatility

Hazards/impediments

• Economic pause– Amount of TOD– Land use mix

• Community backlash– Overpromising– Lesser impacts of

suburban TOD• Failure to reform plans

and ordinances

“Planning process reveals Pasadena residents' distaste for high-density building” Pasadena Star News article on General plan update, 11/27/09

Opportunity #1: Design for TOD type

Opportunity 2: Widen TOD market area with access

• Walk/bike trips

• Subscription shuttles

• Neighborhood electric vehicles

• Reallocate roadway space

• Carshare• Activity center

initiatives

Opportunity 3A: Commuter rail TOD

Anaheim ARTIC terminal

• Transition from commuter rail to HSR

• Platinum Triangle TOD• District-based shared

parking

Opportunity #3B: Bus TOD

El Monte Transit Village BTOD

• Design integration• Federal HOT lane

demonstration• Shared parking/pricing• Multi-agency

agreements

Opportunity #4: Development on station property

• Replace commuter parking

• BART fiscal methodology

• MacArthur case – 600 to 300 commuter spaces

Opportunity #5: Supportive parking regulation, pricing, and management• On-street parking

management• Workplaces (cash

out/charges)• Residences (unbundling/

charges)• Demand-based or zero

requirements

Examples of flexibility…

• Eliminating minimums• Minimums < demand• District-based

minimums • Adjustments• Parking demand model• Performance-based

requirements

The new frame: is TOD an effective climate strategy?

• Potential for VMT reduction strategies• Role of TOD in VMT reduction• TOD in the suburbs• Potential for TOD + pricing

Brookings metropolitan areas GHG 

AreaMetric tons per capita

2005

Change 2000-2005

2005 Rank

New York-Northern New Jersey–Long Island

0.66 +12.5% #1 (best)

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA

0.86 -6.6% #13

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana

0.88 -1.0% #17

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks 1.12 -5.3% #54

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario

1.29 -10.7% #92

Special Report 298: Driving and the Built Environment

Factor 2030 Scenario A 2030 Scenario B

Share of growth in compact development

25% 75%

Density of compact development

Double Double

VMT reduction in compact development

12% 25%

VMT and CO2reduction (versus baseline)

1% 8%

100 miles

TOD in the Inland Empire?

• Houses and logistics• Epitome of auto

orientation• Transit - modest bus,

JTW-oriented commuter rail

• Residential density, no vertical mixed use

• Local interest in TOD• Brownfield sites

around commuter rail

Conclusions on TOD as a VMT reduction strategy…

Area 2030 2050Urban Yes – when economy

recoversYes - land availability issues

Suburban No, but fulfills other planning goals

Yes – brownfield redevelopment, densification

All areas Adaptability to energy price volatility, changing preferences

Adaptability for carbon taxes or rationing

Conclusions on TOD as a climate adaptation strategy…

Impact of warming in CA TOD can provide…

Low moisture, stressed forests, associated wildfires

Reduced forest/urban edge interface

Reduced snowpack, less water

Less irrigated landscape area

Extreme heat events Smaller building envelope, ease of cooling

Treatment/valuation of co‐benefits

• Litman: large and convincing

• Pisarski: not convincing; technology change dominates response

• Wachs: role of mobility in poverty reduction

Realistic strategies for transit and TOD development phasing in suburban areas

• “Transit-ready” development– Design to allow phasing, reuse of parking

• Rapid bus/commuter rail/neighborhood electric vehicles– Last mile transportation

• Emergent walkable clusters• Pricing